Rate this:

When I wrote my post a few weeks ago about Bryan Murray being fired, one of the most familiar refrains I continually heard was that Murray pretty much built the 2007 Stanley Cup champions, the Anaheim Ducks.

This has been repeated so much by so many people that it’s basically taken as fact. It’s a statement that is used to make Murray look like a shrewd GM, and make it seem like he’s done a great job of doing the same here in Ottawa.

However, the statement is a lie. Murray had little to do with 2007 Cup champions. The facts back this up. The majority of that squad was built by other GMs, and even most of the core was constructed by other general managers.

Here’s a look at every single member of that team that won the Stanley Cup, and how they became members of the Anaheim Ducks.

Conclusion

So there you have it. Most people will point to the Perry-Getzlaf-Penner line. But that’s about all Murray had a hand in.

The Ducks won the Cup that year for four reasons.

1) The big three defencemen: Pronger, Niedermayer and Beauchemin all averaged around 30 minutes a night, and did a great job shutting down other teams’ top lines. Murray did not bring in any of those defencemen (or any Cup-winning dmen at all).

2) Their goalies were lights out. Most of the time it was J.S. Giguere, but no matter who was in net, they were great. Murray had nothing to do with that.

3) The Ducks had a great shutdown line in Rob Niedermayer, Samuel Pahlsson and Travis Moen. Murray brought in Niedermayer, the other two were brought in by Brian Burke.

4) Their timely scoring. It mostly came from three people: Selanne, McDonald and Getzlaf. While Murray drafted Getzlaf, he had nothing to do with the other guys.

In fact, of 28 players that played at least one game for the Ducks that playoff season, Murray brought in five of them. That’s it.

Murray doesn’t know how to build a Cup contender, and there’s nothing in his GM history to show otherwise.

This is a refrain I hear too often, but there is absolutely nothing that can back up this claim. In fact, almost the opposite argument can be made. Bryan Murray is an overrated general manager who gets too much credit for a team that has routinely struggled since he took over.

Bryan Murray should be fired as Sens GM.

And with the Sens having problems once again this season (six points out of a playoff spot), the pressure is on for Murray to do something. But Murray is the reason the Sens are where they are today.

I believe, and I’ve written about this before, that all this is karma for the Sens firing John Muckler days after the Stanley Cup finals ended. You know, the finals that featured the Ottawa Senators.

The story goes that the Sens brass didn’t want to lose Murray, and were willing to fire Muckler instead of taking a chance that Murray wouldn’t stay with the organization. It was a big gamble. But it has backfired big time.

Since then, Murray has done more wrong things than right, and it shows with the on-ice product.

Here are seven reasons (one for each season he’s been general manager) why Murray should be let go:

1) Playoff record.

The playoffs say it all. In five seasons with Muckler as general manager, the Sens won seven playoff series. They made the playoffs every season, and only once failed to make it out of the first round. Their playoff record was 39-28. Their series record was 7-5.

Let’s look at Murray’s record. In seven seasons with Murray as general manager, the team has won one playoff series. They’ve missed the playoffs two years. Their playoff record is 12-17. Their series record is 1-4.

2) Regular season record.

230-197-55.

That’s not a good record. The Sens have lost more than half of their regular season games since Bryan Murray became general manager.

3) Coaching carousel.

Sure, Murray hired Paul MacLean, who has done some good stuff with the team. But Murray had four chances to get it right. One of them was bound to be successful.

Murray started off by hiring Jock Paddock, who lasted 64 games. He then put himself behind the bench, and went 7-9-2 in the regular season, and was swept in the playoffs. Murray followed this up by hiring Craig Hartsburg, who lasted 48 games before being fired.

The next coaching guy was Cory Clouston, who actually managed to last more than a season, going a little more than two years before getting canned.

And now there’s MacLean. But that’s a lot of bad coaches over the years, all hired by Murray.

4) Daniel Alfredsson.

It’s been covered by many people about how Alfie left the team. I think the Sens should have showed some loyalty and given Alfredsson what he wanted. But fine, no loyalty, and that might not have been Murray’s decision anyways.

But Murray could have taken the high road while all this was happening. Instead, he chose to blame everything on Alfie. And when #11 told his side of the story, Murray said Alfie had it all wrong.

The face of the franchise for so many years, and this is how you reward him?

5) Free agent signings.

Can you name the last free agent signing Murray made that had an impact on this team? Alexei Kovalev? Bobby Butler? Jarkko Ruuttu? Corey Locke? Zenon Konopka? Guillaume Latendresse? Randy Robitaille? Brendan Bell? Brad Isbister?

Sergei Gonchar is about the only free agent signing Murray ever made that had something positive, and it took three years before it happened. Gonchar was brutal with the Sens the first two years of his contract (he had 27 and 37 points in each season, and was a combined minus-19). And he was grossly overpaid.

6) Trading prospects/picks

Muckler gets blamed a lot for trading prospects and picks and going for it, which is actually a myth. In his five years as Sens GM, he drafted young guys like Spezza, Emery, Schubert, Eaves, Elliott, Regin, Meszaros, Greening, Condra, and Foligno. And what young prospects did he trade away?

Instead of listing them all, I’ll just mention the names you might recognize (under the age of 25 at the time of the trade): Jani Hurme, Tim Gleason, Brooks Laich, Brandon Bochenski, And that’s it.

He never traded away a top prospect, as he let them mature and actually play with the Sens. And only twice did he trade away a second-round pick (not including trades that happened at the draft). And he never traded away a first rounder.

Anyways, Murray started off his GM career with Ottawa much the same way. He traded for Cory Stillman, Martin Lapointe, Mike Commodore, Andy Sutton and Matt Cullen. None of those guys stayed with the team after the season was done.

In case you’re curious, since Murray has been GM, he’s traded away (again, 25 and younger) Patrick Eaves, Andrej Meszaros, Antoine Vermette, David Rundblad, Jakob Silfverberg, three first round picks and four second round picks.

Yet, Muckler gets blamed for giving up on the future. It’s revisionist history at its best.

7) Not signing Gary Roberts.

Sens fans don’t like to admit now, but during the 2007 playoffs when the team was getting creamed by the Ducks, there was a lot of blame directed at Muckler for not trading for Gary Roberts.

In fact, it has been rumoured as one of the main reasons Muckler was let go (here’s a link to a Hockey News story that says the same thing, but here’s a blog post from the time it happened that mentions it). Owner Eugene Melynk even hinted at it during a press conference at the time.

But Murray hasn’t been able to bring in a Gary Roberts-type player either.

So how can one man’s downfall not be his successor’s downfall?

Conclusion

I don’t understand how Sens fans could be happy with Murray at this point. He’s overhauled the roster completely since he took over. They lose in the regular season. They lose in the playoffs.

They’ve traded away prospects, first and second rounders. They mistreated their legendary captain. They’ve had five coaches in seven years. They haven’t made one good free agent signing.

One second after this shot was taken, Ryan Kesler fell to the ice looking for a penalty.

As defending champion, I had traded away a lot of my draft picks to secure the title. In a 74-player draft, I had only three picks, and my first one wasn’t until #41. But I think I have a good chance to repeat.

That said, I did make a few trades, and ended up with a few extra picks, which was much needed.

Our top eight forwards, five defencemen and two goalies count. I was fine with my defence, and wanted a goalie and the rest in forwards.

Anyways, here are my picks and the reasoning behind each one.

Round 3, Pick #30 overall

I had to make a trade to get the next two picks. Anyways, I went with Ryan Kesler. He had back-to-back 70-point seasons before having a bad year and then an injury year. However, he was still on pace for 63 points last season. He’s not a Band-Aid boy (take away last season, and he’s only missed seven games in the previous five years). I think he’ll do well with the new coach.

Round 3, Pick #35

Again, I wanted offence, so I went with Ray Whitney. I love this pick. Whitney had 72 points two years ago. On a bad Dallas team last season, he had 29 in 32 games, a 74-point pace. Like Kesler, he’s not usually injury prone. And he has a lot more help in Dallas this year and a lot more youth around him.

Round 4, pick #41

I originally took Derick Brassard in the 10th round of the inaugural draft in 2009. He was then part of my first ever deal. Since then, he’s pretty much done nothing in the NHL nor in fantasy hockey. But I think this year will be different. He had 11 points in 13 games with the Rangers last year after the trade. Let’s hope he continues that.

Round 5, #57

I normally don’t like to take St. Louis Blues players, but David Backes was still there. The Blues spread around their scoring a lot, so I try to shy away from teams that do that. But it was such a late pick, I had to take the chance on the #1 line guy.

Round 6, #70

I don’t expect him to finish in my top eight, but Michael Ryder will still be a top-six player and get top PP minutes. Someone needs to score in New Jersey, so I expect the team to lean heavily on the Newfoundland native. He’s hit 60 points a couple of times (and was on pace for that last year), so I’d be happy if he got that again.

Round 6, #72

As I said at the beginning, I wanted a goalie. But Nabokov, Halak and Thomas were gone before my first pick. The only guys left were in tandems (Reimer was just taken, Bishop in the fourth round, Mason and Emery weren’t selected). But Kari Ramo was still there, so I took him. Now, I know he’s not going to do better than Price and Niemi this season. But Ramo is the clear-cut #1 goalie. And if he plays well enough, he could be worth keeping at the end of the year. Worst case: he sucks and I wasted a 72nd pick on him. Low risk, high reward.

Overall, I’m pleased with my draft. I have a chance at a couple of home runs. The forwards round out my team nicely. I picked up a #1 goalie really late.

Rate this:

More and more, you start to see more advanced statistics used in hockey, especially on the Internet.

Douglas Murray is the newest Hab, but that might not be a good thing, say some people using advanced statistics.

Most of them are confusing, and the average fan doesn’t need to use or care about them. However, it’s getting to the point when you can’t visit any site on the web without people talking about advanced statistics.

I think they’re massively overblown. Some sites use them as the be all and end all for proving why such and such a player is great or horrible. I’ve seen a lot of it lately with sites trying to figure out if the Montreal Canadiens made a smart move in signing Douglas Murray.

But many of these advanced stats don’t look at the big picture enough. The problem is, taken in a vacuum, all of these stats are useless.

Let’s use two players as example to see who is better. For now, we’ll call them player A and player B.

I’m using the 2012-13 season, all players who played at least 30 games, and these are all in 5 on 5 situations. For the record, 509 players meet these criteria.

Below is a chart that highlights where they stand in regards to some of these advanced stats:

Player A

Player B

Quality of Competition

0.004 (211th)

0.043 (103rd)

Relative Corsi Quality of Competition

0.221 (285th)

0.665 (154th)

Relative Corsi Quality of Teammates

5.812 (14th)

6.116 (11th)

Relative Corsi

20.3 (12th)

20.6 (9th)

On-ice Corsi

16.10 (20th)

25.4 (5th)

On-ice team Goals Against per 60 minutes

2.25 (275th)

1.48 (480th)

On-ice team save percentage

.924 (190th)

.943 (46th)

Looking at that list, most would think that Player B must be better. Plays against tougher competition and is better defensively. And Corsi is better in all sorts of examples.

Maybe Fenwick, which measures puck possession statistics is better. These stats use players who had 500 minutes of 5 on 5 ice time last season (355 eligible players).

Player A

Player B

Goals scored against team while player is on the ice per 20 minutes of ice time

13.08 (153rd)

11.981 (70th)

Hockey Analysis Rating Offence

31.2 (2nd)

30.8 (3rd)

Hockey Analysis Rating Defence

-5.7 (202nd)

9.6 (95th)

Hockey Analysis Rating Total

12.8 (55th)

20.2 (14th)

A lot of these stats can be broken down even more, looking at the last two-year period, or three year-period. But suffice to say, you get the point.

By the way, Player B is Tyler Seguin. Player A is Sidney Crosby. Yet these advanced stats say that Seguin is better.

That’s where these stats all fall apart. There’s so many of them now, you can cherry pick what you want to prove your point.

Habs Eyes on the Prize, an excellent Habs blog, has been pretty hard on Murray. They present some of these stats, and say it reflects on a bad signing.

I disagree, and this point was what I took away from two different articles about Murray:

I was going to use goal statistics here to add balance, but considering the goaltending Murray received last season, we know how that affects the numbers and I don’t think it’s necessary. What we can look at though, is strength of opponents.

See, something that showed Murray in a more positive light isn’t used, just mentioned in passing. Instead, the stats used lean toward the signing being a negative one.

Habs Eyes on the Prize also wrote on about whether Murray is a good penalty killer, using all these fancy stats. Here’s all I need to know about Murray:

Only 60 defencemen last year had more than 100 shorthanded minutes. Murray was one of them.

He was 20th among all defencemen in blocked shots.

He was tied for 30th among all defencemen in hits.

Only eight defencemen had more hits and blocked shots combined.

He was in three fights last year, and won all of them.

Despite being slower, he doesn’t take a lot of penalties. Last year, he had just 35 pims. Take out the fights, that equates to only 10 minor penalties (about one every four games).

While killing penalties, he starts in the offensive zone four per cent of the time, but finishes there 45.1 per cent.

Here’s the thing: Murray is making only $600,000 over the league minimum. And he’s coming in as a sixth/seventh defenceman. He’s not going to be coming in and playing 20 minutes a game.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There are some important non-traditional stats. Top teammates, PDO, offensive zone starts, etc.

But advanced stats can get out of hand. You can look at them all you want and use them to prove whatever you want. But in the end, they don’t really prove anything.

Rate this:

One thing that really bothers me is when people call Patrick Roy classless for demanding a trade from the Habs years ago.

Patrick isn’t the first Habs superstar to leave the team, but he takes the most grief for it. (Antoine Letarte photo, via Wikimedia Commons)

It’s come up a lot again lately, with Roy being named the head coach of the Colorado Avalanche. It seems to come every few years, whether it’s retiring his jersey, or being in the running for the Habs head coaching position.

In case you don’t know the story, on Dec. 2, 1995, Patrick Roy was left in net for nine goals, as the Habs lost 12-1 to the Detroit Red Wings. When he was pulled, he went past the coach, Mario Tremblay, and told team president Ronald Corey that he would never play a game for Montreal again.

Four days later, he and captain Mike Keane was traded to the Colorado Avalanche for Andre Kovalenko, Martin Rucinsky and Jocelyn Thibault.

Nowadays, a lot of fans remember that game, and still hold a grudge against Roy. I think it’s silly. But people say what Roy did was classless, and goes against the tradition of the Habs organization.

After all, old-time players would never do something like that.

Really? If anything, Roy simply followed a long-honoured tradition of bailing on the team. It doesn’t take long going through the Habs history to find examples of players and coaches turning their backs on the organization.

Here are some of the biggest:

1) Guy Lafleur. When Guy Lafleur left the organization during the middle of the 1984-85 season, he didn’t retire because he was feeling old, worn down or tired of the game. No, he left because he didn’t like the ice time he received from coach Jacques Lemaire. Lafleur asked to be traded, but when told he wouldn’t be, he packed his bags and quit. He made a decision that he would rather not play hockey rather than stay with the Habs organization because of troubles he was having with his coach. Sound familiar? Yet Roy gets chastised while Lafleur is still remembered as a Habs legend.

2) Bernie Boom-Boom Geoffrion. Geoffrion didn’t have ice time to blame for leaving the Habs. No, his was a different reason: the captaincy. Apparently, he was so upset that Beliveau was given the C in 1961 that it gnawed at him until he decided he would rather retire than play for the Habs.

3) Gump Worsley. Roy wasn’t the first goalie to quit on the Habs in the middle of a season. The coach at the time, Claude Ruel, was playing Rogatien Vachon more, and wanted to send Worsley to the minors. He refused and quit the team, eventually deciding to retire.

4) Scotty Bowman. Yes, it’s not just limited to players. After the 1978-79 season, the Habs decided to hire Irving Grundman as general manager. So Bowman quit the team and went to coach the Buffalo Sabres instead.

There’s four good examples of superstars leaving the Habs organization because they weren’t happy with the team, for what ever reason. And I’m sure we could find more if we tried. Yet Roy is the one that takes the brunt of the criticism.

Look, I’m not saying that you can’t be angry at Roy for what he did. But it’s hypocritical to blame him for turning his back on the Habs while not doing the same for the other players who have done the same.